D&D 5E [+] Explain RPG theory without using jargon

[Hussar]

It’s mostly an academic understanding. I’ve read some rules systems that I’m given to understand are narrativist, and I think they would be fun to play, in a different way than D&D 5e is fun to play, but haven’t had occasion to do so. I have played a lot of D&D 4e, which is generally praised for supporting narrativist play pretty well, and loved it. But, in terms of what would need to change in 5e to support narrativist play? I mean, the basic gameplay structure isn’t really set up for it. You’d need to re-structure the conversation of the game around dramatic conflict rather than environmental interaction. 4e did this by building everything around the encounter as the nexus of the gameplay, and provided a structure for non-combat encounters that was focused on consequence resolution rather than task resolution. You could incorporate some of these ideas into 5e, but I think the result would just be a bad imitation of 4e. And, honestly, there are other, better systems out there for narrativist play anyway.

Why would you want to use 5e for narrativist play? It is really, really the wrong system for that.

Where I think the bigger issue is, is when people try making these claims about simulation and how 5e is all about simulation. It's not. It's High Concept Simulationist - it leans very heavily on genre and making sure that play will focus on genre, but, simulation (the plain English meaning of a system that helps to conceptualize how something happens) it is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Are the following statements about typical D&D 5e play or typical Apocalypse World play in any way contentious:

• Typical Apocalypse World play is far more concerned with putting pressure on who the characters are as people.
• Typical 5e play is far more concerned with exploration of setting.
• Typical Apocalypse World play is far more likely to result in poignant moments where we find out more about who the player characters are as people.
• Typical 5e play is far more likely to be concerned with logistics of space and time.
• Typical 5e play is likely to include a lot of investigation of unrevealed information for players to leverage.

This only one thing bit is distracting from the central idea that where we place our focus matters.

I don’t necessarily agree with the third bullet point as phrased, but I think I understand the sentiment behind it and I agree with that. I think Appocalypse World is more likely to feature poignant scenes which directly interrogate the PCs’ emotions, desires, fears, inner turmoil, etc. I don’t think this is the only way to learn who the PCs are as people though, and I think 5e has similar potential for doing so, but would be likely to go about it in a different way than AW. Otherwise, I agree with these.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why would you want to use 5e for narrativist play? It is really, really the wrong system for that.

I wouldn’t. Ovinomancer asked me what I would need to change about 5e to make it work for Narratibist play, to prove that I’m a Real Narrativist Gamer Girl, and I humored them. I’m guessing one of you has the other blocked.

 

[pemerton]

But isn’t incoherence supposed to be an undesirable thing under GNS?

Not really.

It's posited as a property of game texts, that then explains why those game texts can produce confusion or uncertainty or conflict when actually used to play RPGs.

Whether that would be desirable or undesirable would depend on whether or not you thought it was good or bad to avoid that sort of outcome. If your goals are primarily commercial, and you're confident that the market into which you're selling will have ways of reconciling the confusion or uncertainty or conflict, and you believe that trying to reduce or eliminate those outcomes would cost sales, then incoherence isn't undesirable at all!

 

[Charlaquin]

Do you have any specifics?

Restructure the conversation of the game around consequence resolution and add a system for non-combat encounters designed around such principles not specific enough for you? Sorry if I don’t feel like doing the design work to overhaul D&D just to prove my nerd cred to you.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, and this isn't answering the question. How is using a meta-tool that paces challenge reflecting the world with integrity? It explicitly discards such considerations!

Because we can do that and care about setting considerations! These things are not in conflict.

And you've changed the example again. You've added a clause where the GM has post-hoc written in some story that requires these guys to be here for their scenario, such that their removal would cause issues with the portrayal of the world. If that's the case, then, sure, you have a point. But you only got to it because you changed the example to a different example.

I changed nothing. You said that the reinforcements are in the next room and ready to come to help.

Yes, the lens which was part of the example I provided. You changed the understanding of the situation from the one I explicitly laid out to a new one. When you do that, you change the example.

Your claim was that if we care about high concept simulationism, we save the PCs. And I said that completely depends on the high concept we are simulating. I did not change the example.

Walk me through this. You said "attached to their character," yes? What do you think this means? To me, it means that they're attached to the way their character is interacting with the setting and plot of the game (the story) and want that to continue. Absent those considerations, what is it that the player is attaching to?

The idea of the character. Some people don't want their character to die even if it was the last session and the story wouldn't continue anyway. Trying to force this to be about story is just you trying to shoehorn things to conform into your model. It doesn't work.

Of course not. I have quite a few criticisms of it. I'm actually arguing against a few of those in this thread because the theory is being discussed and it's important to understand the theory and how it's applied fully before engaging in the kinds of nuanced criticisms I have. I'll give you, for free, that I find the naming of the agendas to be nearly infinite in their ability to cause confusion, though. That's not at all nuanced. If people show that they grasp the theory, I'd be happy to have some discussion of where I think it's gone wrong and where I think it's still doing good stuff. Right now, I mostly have those discussions elsewhere. And, in the meantime, I'm going to present the case for GNS as clearly as I can so that more understanding can happen and good criticism can occur.

How you feel that's going? Have you considered that the reason people 'are not getting it' is actually the serious flaws in the theory?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Restructure the conversation of the game around consequence resolution and add a system for non-combat encounters designed around such principles not specific enough for you? Sorry if I don’t feel like doing the design work to overhaul D&D just to prove my nerd cred to you.

Fair enough. A list of specific pain points would suffice nicely -- no game design needed.

 

[pemerton]

Have you considered that the reason people 'are not getting it' is actually the serious flaws in the theory?

Competition, and winning, and challenges - the sorts of things towards which gamist play is oriented - require stability.

Making a point, and expressing and resolving protagonism, require constant change and riffing to pod and proke and generate adversity.

Hence gameplay can't be oriented towards gamsim and narrativism at the same time.

Where's the flaw?

 

[Hussar]

How you feel that's going? Have you considered that the reason people 'are not getting it' is actually the serious flaws in the theory?

But, there is a flip side to this. It's really not all that hard to get. It's been explained pretty clearly multiple times in this thread. Some really fantastically clear examples actually. So, at what point is the theory flawed or the people? There is a VERY strong inherent bias against any sort of critical thinking in any field. RPG's are no different. And when people repeatedly insist that their definition of terms must be used in contradiction to how the term is understood within the context of the conversation, that's not really the flaw in the theory.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But, there is a flip side to this. It's really not all that hard to get. It's been explained pretty clearly multiple times in this thread. Some really fantastically clear examples actually. So, at what point is the theory flawed or the people? There is a VERY strong inherent bias against any sort of critical thinking in any field. RPG's are no different. And when people repeatedly insist that their definition of terms must be used in contradiction to how the term is understood within the context of the conversation, that's not really the flaw in the theory.

The thing is, people 'get' the theory. You're right, it is not that complicated. They just don't agree with. But the adherents cannot accept this. As they believe the theory to be true, any disagreement must be due lack of understanding, so they need to explain harder!